# Wet Smoking Vs Dry: A Side By Side Comparison featuring the Gurkha Regent Robusto



## Nurse_Maduro (Oct 23, 2008)

I was going to place this in the Reviews board, but it really isn't a review. If any mod feels otherwise, please feel free to do with it what you'd like. 

*Wet Smoking Vs Dry: A Side By Side Comparison featuring the Gurkha Regent Robusto*
(See: http://www.cigarforums.net/forums/vb/general-cigar-discussion/275059-lighting-cigar.html for the genesis of this experiment)​









Today in New York state the National Weather Service has issued an Air Quality Alert with the following announcement (their caps, not mine): "AIR QUALITY LEVELS IN OUTDOOR AIR ARE PREDICTED TO BE GREATER THAN AN AIR QUALITY INDEX VALUE OF 100 FOR THE POLLUTANT OF OZONE. THE AIR QUALITY INDEX... OR AQI... WAS CREATED AS AN EASY WAY TO CORRELATE LEVELS OF DIFFERENT POLLUTANTS TO ONE SCALE. THE HIGHER THE AQI VALUE, THE GREATER THE HEALTH CONCERN." That means breathing will be difficult. Not only that, but it's supposed to reach 92 degrees where I am. Of course, this makes it the _perfect_ day to smoke two Gurkhas at once!

Knowing I wanted to beat the heat, and that I didn't want to take this kind of abuse on an empty stomach, I grabbed something to eat, and prepared to begin the experiment by 9am. The question I sought to answer was this: Does wetting a cigar improve the experience of smoking it?

Before we begin, let me state that this is not a review of the Gurkha Regent Robusto; that will follow this report. This is simply a comparison of how a 'wet' cigar smokes compared to a dry one.

Calling a cigar 'wet' is a bit of a misnomer; it's not actually smoked while wet, rather, the cigar is allowed time to dry before lighting. The term 'wet' will be used here as a label to more easily identify which cigar I am commenting on. To make it easier to identify in the pictures below, the 'wet' cigar is the one without the band.










It was important that all things be as equal as possible, so that any aberrations in the experiment would have a greater chance of being the direct result of each cigar's state of hydration. Both of these cigars have been chosen specifically for this, and are as close as possible in wrapper color, integrity (that is, intact and without blemishes or tears), and density (firm without being spongy). Additionally, both cigars come from the same box, and have had two years of aging in a humidor that is currently sitting at 64% RH. Fortunately, because of the aging, the band removes easily from the cigar to be moistened without my having to tear it.

After the band removal comes the wetting of the cigar. _This_ is a slightly terrifying thing to do. I hold the stick at the head, and rotate it under a steady, gentle, stream of water for about two seconds a side (these are box pressed, making it easier), for a total of eight seconds. Holding it at an angle ensures no water gets into the foot. I then dab off the excess water with a clean paper towel, then wrap the cigar loosely in another paper towel and leave it alone for fifteen minutes.










Prior to wrapping, I notice that the water has left an unusual (but not entirely unexpected) wrinkling effect on the outer leaf, along with some slight mottling noted. After fifteen minutes have passed, the wrapper looks as smooth as when it came out of the humidor, but it is now noticeably lighter in color.










Accompanying beverage is simply water, to avoid affecting my palette. To establish a baseline, the dry Gurkha is lit first by using a soft flame on an unclipped cigar - something I've never tried before. Once a superficial ash had formed on the foot, I blew lightly on it to even it out, then clipped it, purged it once by blowing gently through it, then began smoking normally. To this, I have to say...wow. I will never light another cigar again in any other fashion. What a difference! That first draw was like pulling a hot knife through butter: soft and easy, and tasting of _nothing_ but tobacco. The 'wet' Gurkha is then lit in the exact same way, and with the same results. If nothing else, I highly recommend everyone try this method at least once.










I then proceeded to smoke both cigars, alternating between the two. My notes are as follows:

Burn: _Initially_ about the same. However, the dry Gurkha went out while the wet one stayed lit! After the one-third mark however, the wet cigar became uneven and needed retouching. It also began to exhibit a propensity for going out. To combat this I needed slightly harder pulls to keep it lit. This resulted in a marked bitterness developing throughout the duration of the experiment, something that would be expected. Purging did help at first, but the occasional retouching needed, along with the harder draws, eventually made it not worth smoking any longer, and it was allowed to extinguish at the two-thirds mark. 
The dry cigar was nubbed. 










Flavor? This is the difficult part. As far as _intensity_ of the flavor goes, I'd have to say there really was no difference between the two cigars. However, and what is probably _more_ surprising than a change in intensity, is that the wet Gurkha exhibited hay-like notes. I have smoked boxes of these sticks, and this is a characteristic I have never noted before; I feel confident in saying that this is a completely new, and not unpleasant, sub textual flavor. This hay/grassiness diminished as the stick progressed, so I'd hypothesize that this is due to the moisture level reducing as the time spent burning increased.

Ash Color: No discernible difference noted.

Ash Length: Difficult to tell; due to the burn issues, any comparison would be unfair.

Retrohaling: The same hay / grassy notes were noted while retrohaling, but here there was a pronounced increase in intensity. Again, this would be expected.

Smoke amount / color / quality: No discernible difference noted.

Conclusion: I would say that, because of the burn issues the 'wet' cigar exhibited, that it might benefit from more drying time; I would add another 15 minutes (for a total of 30). As far as the 'wet' cigar not having an increased intensity of flavor, it is possible that the Gurkha is simply too full-bodied a cigar to fully appreciate the difference wetting may make. Further experiments with a milder stick may prove to have more dramatic results.

While I did take away an appreciation for the difference lighting technique makes, I'm not as sure about 'wetting' yet. I will probably revisit this experiment at a later point with a milder cigar. There are definitely reports that this _does_ make a difference for some, so for me to dismiss it after only one attempt would be foolish. The unofficial motto of Puff seems to be "Smoke what you like and like what you smoke," and I certainly agree with this. I also encourage anyone else to give this technique a try and post their own thoughts and results.

Thanks to Gary (Cigary) for this_ extremely_ cool, and fascinating, idea. I'm still uncertain as to if you're not just messing with us, but it was a blast.


----------



## kenelbow (Jan 14, 2010)

Very well written John and very interesting. I'm not quite sold on the idea of wetting a cigar myself, but found this to be a fascinating read. Maybe I will try it someday, but I get so much enjoyment out of my dry cigars already that I am not that motivated to try it yet.


----------



## Nickerson (Mar 19, 2009)

The whole concept of wetting a cigar just seems kinda stupid to me... I've heard of the opposite of people dry boxing cigars, but never wetting...

I would feel kind of silly if I did half the tips people post about smoking cigars. Wetting them, letting them dry a bit, toasting the foot indirectly, cutting them after lighting, etc.

By the time I'm ready to smoke I would have been prepping for 10-15 minutes. I just cut, light, enjoy. I've had no problems with it. No need to make a science out of it really. 

Thanks for the experiment though. Very well done.

P.S. I use a Zippo Butane soft insert as well!


----------



## Jordan303 (Aug 16, 2008)

Very interesting. Thank you very much for the comparison. 

I have never "soaked" my stogie but this is interesting. I'll be watching this thread to see what others think.


----------



## Cigary (Oct 19, 2007)

*I loved this and enjoyed reading it. First of all I'm glad you used the soft flame and then cut...I do this with all my cigars now and it makes for a more enjoyable smoke. Secondly on the choice of cigars for your experiment I have to say I have not done a Gurkha...yet.... but I do have 3 Centurions and 1 Regent that I might have to do a comparison. I smoked a Cubao Maduro last night and wet it but left it for an hour and then went outside for my midnight smoke. WOW! Razor burn and great flavor. When I wet my cigars I let the faucet run very lightly...just enough H2O to gradually run down the wrapper for about 8 seconds. I read and noticed the motteling of the wrapper on yours and mine will get like that as well but when I hold my cigar under the running water I do it straight down from the head. Doing it an angle I don't think would be adverse as you just want to wet down the wrapper. *

*Thanks to Gary (Cigary) for this extremely cool, and fascinating, idea. I'm still uncertain as to if you're not just messing with us, but it was a blast. *
__________________
Now seriously..do u think I'd do that? ROFL


----------



## K. Corleon (Jul 22, 2010)

Hey guys, I smoked a cigar last night in the shower, making sure the cigar got totally covered with water, it changed my life. What a great smoke!


----------



## Mr. Slick (Aug 17, 2010)

Hey, let's all have a HERF/Pool party. I'll dump a box of sticks in the pool then we can go diving for them.

But seriously that is really cool of Nurse Maduro to try this and then make such a wonderfully detailed post about it.


----------



## Nurse_Maduro (Oct 23, 2008)

Thanks, Gary. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the ones you've smoked, since the idea was yours to begin with. Just curious: Where did you hear about it? I've heard about moistening the head, but this is overkill. lol

Cory: Trust me, I'm the same as you. The reason I did this was because it was so bizarre an idea, but came from one of the most respected and knowledgable people here. It was a lark; something fun to do, that's all. However, I have to say...if _nothing_ else, don't knock the lighting technique until you try it. I still can't believe what a difference it makes. Does it affect the whole cigar? Not outwardly. But it _is_ a great way to start off, and the less heat it takes to get the foot torched, the less tar that develops, and the better the flavor, both at the start, and throughout the entire smoke.



K. Corleon said:


> Hey guys, I smoked a cigar last night in the shower, making sure the cigar got totally covered with water, it changed my life. What a great smoke!


Well,_ that_ was some useful input! Thanks for taking the time to chime in.


----------



## jimbo1 (Aug 18, 2010)

Well done, very informative and dareing, great pics too. Will try the lighting method w/ the uncut cap. May try the "wet" smoke down the road, who knows I may love it, won't know unless I try.

:beerchug:


----------



## Herf N Turf (Dec 31, 2008)

Interesting and well done. I've never seen this done with a NC cigar before, only habanos. I've always seen it done by holding the entire cigar under the running water, pre-cut, cap and all. I've also never heard or read anyone commenting on "intensity", but rather just some different, subtle notes emerging. Never heard anyone declare dry or wet to be superior, just "different".


----------



## Nickerson (Mar 19, 2009)

Mr. Slick said:


> Hey, let's all have a HERF/Pool party. I'll dump a box of sticks in the pool then we can go diving for them.


:r

"Wow wetting a cigar does make a difference... I detect notes of chlorine and urine."

I seriously laughed out loud when I saw this. I pictured someone dumping a box of cigars into a pool and sayin "go get 'em boys!" and everyone diving in and grabbing a soggy cigar. HAHAH


----------



## TonyBrooklyn (Jan 28, 2010)

Great post Nurse Maduro Bump for ya!:clap2:
Is that a lighter fluid zippo you lit those cigars with.:faint2:
Shame on you bad boy:moony:


----------



## aea6574 (Jun 5, 2009)

Howdy John:

i hope you are well.

Thanks for your thoughts and taking up the challenge of smoking them side by side and taking all the pictures. I think you confirmed that I really do not need to try the wetting thing. Will be trying the lighting before I cut idea though.

Best regards, tony


----------



## zeavran1 (Aug 18, 2009)

Great job!! This was a fantastic read. As to wetting cigars, I don't think my interest in doing that will have me wetting them anytime soon. Maybe after several review I'll be able to average out the experiences and give it a second thought in the future. I believe this thread will live forever!! Very well done with interesting descriptions and great pictures to boot. Thanks John! I appreciate the effort on this one. :thumb:


----------



## Nurse_Maduro (Oct 23, 2008)

Thanks for the comments everyone! I'm glad (most of) you guys got that this was in fun, and that you enjoyed it. 



Herf N Turf said:


> Interesting and well done. I've never seen this done with a NC cigar before, only habanos. I've always seen it done by holding the entire cigar under the running water, pre-cut, cap and all. I've also never heard or read anyone commenting on "intensity", but rather just some different, subtle notes emerging. Never heard anyone declare dry or wet to be superior, just "different".


Thanks for posting this; the only person I've heard do this is Gary, and I believe he described a difference in intensity, whereas your comment about other notes emerging is _exactly_ what I experienced. In my opinion, that lends this experiment some validity, because it wasn't something I had a preconceived notion about.

As I've read some pretty passionate responses to this throughout the day (which is _very_ cool; regardless of which side of the fence you're on, the very fact that people are excited and talking about our favorite hobby is always a good thing), I've realized that this really isn't new. Before the humidor became popular, most people used to dip their cigars in some kind of liquid, although it usually contained alcohol (brandy, cognac, scotch, etc). While the practice has certainly faded, certainly there was more to it than just a way to hydrate the leaf; many smokers had to have favorite pairings. Imagine the possibiities! Of course, back then, the majority of cigars were Cuban, and there weren't as many options as today. But just because the practice is no more, doesn't mean it is entirely without merit.

I have no intentions of dipping a Camacho Triple Maddie in my bottle of The Glenlivit, so those of you who are feeling the little hairs on the back of your neck prickling, you can relax. I just find the idea, from a creative perspective, very interesting. 

Oh, and here's an 'outtake' from today...I now have a hole in my shorts.  And...daaayaamn, I need a haircut.


----------



## Arnie (Jan 5, 2009)

Thanks Nurse M, I feel vindicated. Not so much for the wetting, I do that routinely, but for the smoking of 2 cigars at once. I ran that idea up the flagpole here a while ago and got shot down by the BOTL's here. Thanks for doing this.

As for wetting cigars: When I was a kid 50 years ago or so, all the old-timers smoked cigars and they all moistened them prior to smoking. I think it's optional and not all that weird, and it does affect the flavor in a subtle, good way. As you said, there were fewer smokers with humidors in those days---at least in my family. It's a way to keep the wrapper from splitting as you smoke. 

Well done. :clap2:


----------



## Nickerson (Mar 19, 2009)

TonyBrooklyn said:


> Great post Nurse Maduro Bump for ya!:clap2:
> Is that a lighter fluid zippo you lit those cigars with.:faint2:
> Shame on you bad boy:moony:


Butane insert.


----------



## TonyBrooklyn (Jan 28, 2010)

Nickerson said:


> Butane insert.


Really they make one with a flint?:hmm:
The only insert i have seen which i have and use is the Z-Plus.
No wheel on that its a piezoelectric.


----------



## Nurse_Maduro (Oct 23, 2008)

TonyBrooklyn said:


> Really they make one with a flint?:hmm:
> The only insert i have seen which i have and use is the Z-Plus.
> No wheel on that its a piezoelectric.


Confirmed. I am actually out of butane, so I had the original insert in today. However, I swear to you, that lighting it the way I did, there was nothing but tobacco in that first draw. (ducking)

Mmmmm....'bacco......*drool*


----------



## TonyBrooklyn (Jan 28, 2010)

Nurse_Maduro said:


> Confirmed. I am actually out of butane, so I had the original insert in today. However, I swear to you, that lighting it the way I did, there was nothing but tobacco in that first draw. (ducking)
> 
> Mmmmm....'bacco......*drool*


Thanks for the clarification i thought as much. I have a friend on another forum that has told me he has done it on occasion with no ill effects. He lights the lighter and lets it burn for 10 seconds before holding the cigar near it. He says by then the smell of fuel is dissipated.:beerchug:


----------



## ptpablo (Aug 22, 2010)

Thanks for the read nurse maduro.....now i can cross the wetting of the cigars off my must try list.....


----------



## fiddlegrin (Feb 8, 2009)

*Outakes are FUN!!!*

A la Jackie Chan__! 

:clap2:

:rockon:


----------



## Vwluv10338 (Aug 24, 2010)

I'm glad something came out of the pic you posted earlier. Remember...... in science no results are still results.


----------



## Rookee (Aug 5, 2009)

TonyBrooklyn said:


> Really they make one with a flint?:hmm:
> The only insert i have seen which i have and use is the Z-Plus.
> No wheel on that its a piezoelectric.


In case you are interested Thunderbird Lighter Insert by Vector KGM


----------



## z0diac (May 18, 2010)

Awesome review! And very well done experiment to keep all other things equal. Great stuff!



> Is that a lighter fluid zippo you lit those cigars with.
> Shame on you bad boy


..[ re: our other thread on lighting] ^^^ see what I mean! Exactly what I was talking about. I won't say more on people who make that type of comment as we've already discussed it... (but you can see how SOME people might be annoyed when they're judged like that by others! ) I'll leave it at that because I have neither the time nor energy to get into a new debate with someone else


----------



## jeepthing (Jul 16, 2009)

Very kool comparision


----------



## Habanolover (Feb 22, 2006)

John, the wetting of cigars under the tap has been discussed at great length and promoted by MRN (who is considered by many to be one of the foremost authorities on Cuban cigars). One of the points to it is that the filler is a little bit damper than the wrapper and wetting will help them to burn at an equal rate.

It is also said to help dissipate the taste of ammonia to an extent in younger cigars.


----------



## Cigary (Oct 19, 2007)

Nurse_Maduro said:


> Thanks, Gary. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the ones you've smoked, since the idea was yours to begin with. Just curious: Where did you hear about it? I've heard about moistening the head, but this is overkill. lol
> 
> Cory: Trust me, I'm the same as you. The reason I did this was because it was so bizarre an idea, but came from one of the most respected and knowledgable people here. It was a lark; something fun to do, that's all. However, I have to say...if _nothing_ else, don't knock the lighting technique until you try it. I still can't believe what a difference it makes. Does it affect the whole cigar? Not outwardly. But it _is_ a great way to start off, and the less heat it takes to get the foot torched, the less tar that develops, and the better the flavor, both at the start, and throughout the entire smoke.
> 
> Well,_ that_ was some useful input! Thanks for taking the time to chime in.


*Actually I have read on this subject when I first saw it about 2 years ago and at that time I thought...c'mon, this has got to be a gimmick. I read more about it and came to the same conclusion as well as reading others comments on doing this. Now before I continue let me make this clear so that others who chime in are not getting the idea that I am advocating that in order to achieve Cigar Nirvana one must partake in this exercise....so far I've read more than one post saying that I am telling others that this is the definitive way to enjoying a cigar. For those who are having difficulty in understanding this let me say it again....THIS IS SOMETHING I HAVE FOUND THAT WORKS FOR ME. This isn't nor ever was up for debate as to what is the best way in enjoying a cigar.*

*Now John....you asked where I heard of it and that is where I first heard of it...as far as "intensity" is concerned after the draw the smoke was more robust and the flavors that I usually would get from the cigar had a bit more intense/better flavor as the smoke was a bit more humid which translated to a better flavor. I do not like a dry cigar so when I read about "wetting" a cigar I was intriqued because if I can get more humidity into the smoke I get more flavors out of but conversely I don't want a cigar that is so "wet" it turns into a bad cigar because of burn issues etc.*

*Sometimes when somebody talks about their experiences or how they like a certain cigar others tend to take issue as if they are saying that this is how every cigar should be smoked. *

*I'm about to quit giving my opinion anymore because of the nonsense of how it's being taken lately...if I have to explain for the 1,000 time that peoples cigar experience is their own and smoke what you like...how you like,,when you like...where you like...or how you cut...light,,etc. I might just lose what is left of my mind.*


----------



## KickinItInSD (Aug 4, 2010)

Exceedingly interesting, but scary. Thinking about snoking a soggy cigar is enough to make me not want to even try it.


----------



## marked (Jul 29, 2010)

I do this on occasion, but instead of running it under a tap, I dunk it in a glass of water for 2-3 seconds.


----------



## baderjkbr (Jun 21, 2010)

Keep up the good work guys. As a newbie Im always interested in new ideas. Gary your right.


----------



## Arnie (Jan 5, 2009)

Cigary said:


> *I'm about to quit giving my opinion anymore because of the nonsense of how it's being taken lately...if I have to explain for the 1,000 time that peoples cigar experience is their own and smoke what you like...how you like,,when you like...where you like...or how you cut...light,,etc. I might just lose what is left of my mind.*


Gary,
You can't quit giving us your opinion. You are one of THE MOST respected Bro's around here. And you are one of the best at creating an atmosphere of "live and let live" that this site has. Don't let the bastards get you down!!

As for moistening a cigar before smoking it......... I've seen that done for decades. What's all the fuss!


----------



## Herf N Turf (Dec 31, 2008)

Habanolover said:


> John, the wetting of cigars under the tap has been discussed at great length and promoted by MRN (who is considered by many to be one of the foremost authorities on Cuban cigars). One of the points to it is that the filler is a little bit damper than the wrapper and wetting will help them to burn at an equal rate.
> 
> It is also said to* help dissipate the taste of ammonia to an extent in younger cigars*.


You guys need to pay close attention to what Donnie is saying here!

This is THE definitive post in this thread!

He is quoting, His Holiness, Dr. M Ron Nee!

Again, pay attention to Habbi!


----------



## gibson_es (Jan 23, 2010)

man, i dont know i i didnt see thee earlier.

great job here.


----------



## mike91LX (Aug 12, 2009)

great review i was wondering about trying this. the pic is awesome haha


----------



## Nurse_Maduro (Oct 23, 2008)

Wow, there's been a lot of action here since I left yesterday!



Arnie said:


> Thanks Nurse M, I feel vindicated. Not so much for the wetting, I do that routinely, but for the smoking of 2 cigars at once. I ran that idea up the flagpole here a while ago and got shot down by the BOTL's here. Thanks for doing this.
> 
> _Don't let anyone tell you what you can or can't do, my friend. This is only a hobby, and if no one took any chances, we wouldn't even have certain techniques (such as retrohaling) today._
> 
> ...





fiddlegrin said:


> *Outakes are FUN!!!*
> A la Jackie Chan__!
> 
> _LOL! Yeah, but I didn't break anything (except my pride). _





Vwluv10338 said:


> I'm glad something came out of the pic you posted earlier. Remember...... in science no results are still results.
> 
> _True, but I consider that to have had some pretty major results. I was going after intensity differences, which didn't pan out, but there were definitely other notes coming through that simply don't exist in the dry cigar...so I'd consider that a success (or at least worthy of attempting again, with a longer drying period after wetting the cigar - which may produce more intensity as well). Plus, the new lighting technique surprised the hell outta me (still does, actually)._





Cigary said:


> *Now John....you asked where I heard of it and that is where I first heard of it...as far as "intensity" is concerned after the draw the smoke was more robust and the flavors that I usually would get from the cigar had a bit more intense/better flavor as the smoke was a bit more humid which translated to a better flavor. I do not like a dry cigar so when I read about "wetting" a cigar I was intriqued because if I can get more humidity into the smoke I get more flavors out of but conversely I don't want a cigar that is so "wet" it turns into a bad cigar because of burn issues etc.*
> 
> _That's pretty cool. Based on what you said yesterday about not getting back to your stick (after wetting it) for an hour and discovering how improved the burn was, that makes me want to try this again, increasing the drying time (and wetting it more evenly). _
> 
> ...


Thanks for the comments and critiques, everyone. One of the things I really love about Puff is this excitement and exchange of ideas that we have. This thread is a great example of this, and only proves that Puff is as amazing as it is because of all of you. Salut! :beerchug:


----------

